Translated material
Anton Dolin. Cinema-36: Hannibalism
Towards the release of Ridley Scott's film "Hannibal"
about Hannibal A lot of bad things have been written and said . He was criticized as much as he could - for lowering the bar, and for overly naturalistic and even more disgusting scenes, and for old-fashioned direction, and for vague pathos, and for replacing Jodie Foster - less known to the general public, Julianne Moore. Obviously, Ridley Scott knew what he was getting into when, ten years later, he took on directing the sequel to the most acclaimed thriller in Hollywood history, The Silence of the Lambs . It takes courage and audacity to dismantle a myth so beloved by the public and try to tell your own story based on it. Let me make a reservation right away: before Scott, the author of the novels about Hannibal Lecter, Tom Harris, did this. It is possible that it was easier for Harris: firstly, he invented Hannibal himself and has the right to do whatever he wants with him, and secondly, the 1999 novel “Hannibal” is not the second, but the third in the series. Ridley Scott chose the most favorable moment - the peak of the success of his previous film, named picture of the year at the Oscars. "Gladiator" - and rushed headlong into the pool.
All the changes in the cultural and social situation that have occurred since the time of “The Silence of the Lambs” created that near-scandalous aura that accompanied “Hannibal” from its very birth. Strictly speaking, what was the reason for the incredible success of “Silence”? Probably due to the fact that Jonathan Demme made the first attempt in the history of Hollywood to create an intellectual thriller - that is, not a thriller for intellectuals (Hitchcock had fun with this), but a thriller for the widest public that would also have an “art-house” component , organically woven into the overall fabric. According to the recognition of critics, the public and colleagues (four Oscars are no joke!), he succeeded. Well, indeed: the absolutely trivial story of the abduction of a high-ranking hostage by an unknown maniac was surrounded in “Silence” by an unusually complex surroundings: FBI agent Clarice Starling turned out to be a thin and fragile blonde with a piercing gaze, and her assistant was a particularly dangerous criminal behind bars, the mad cannibal doctor Hannibal Lecter, who once knew the would-be kidnapper. Their complex dialogues, deductive calculations and Freudian delving into each other's souls ensured the film's success, although the imbalance between the task and the methods for solving it was obvious. Which, however, did not bother anyone: Sir’s magnetic gaze and quiet voice Anthony Hopkins captivated the viewer, and that was enough. A smart girl, an unusual bright personality, a charming hero - and a cannibal... that's what almost everyone liked.
Ten years have passed. Unexpectedly, it turned out that cannibalism - an a priori non-trivial type of criminal activity - has always been associated with auteur cinema. This has become commonplace. Genet and Caro in France staged "Delicacies" , where the residents of an apocalyptic house devoured newcomers, and Greenaway in England created "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" , where the cook and the "thief's" wife forced the latter to eat the "lover" cooked according to an exquisite recipe ". Documentary ethnographic films about cannibals have become fashionable. People were eating people left and right. At the very least, it seems completely impossible to scare anyone with cannibalism at the beginning of the new century. As for the stories about maniacs and hostages, everyone was so tired of them that they simply stopped appearing on movie screens, content with the nightly broadcast of cable channels. That's why Hannibal was bound to be a very different film than Silence of the Lambs. That's how it turned out.
In the era of honest and straightforward thrillers, at the turn of the 80s and 90s, a film full of significant silence and lengthy conversations looked unusual. Now that the phrase “intellectual thriller” no longer seems absurd, avoiding cleverness and speculation by making the action external and normative-detective is also an act. Although, on the other hand, Ridley Scott doesn’t know how to work any other way. His element is old-fashionedness, which sometimes brings him success (the case of “Gladiator” is proof of this), and sometimes becomes the basis for cruel criticism (the case of “Hannibal”). So, instead of silence - action. The film opens with a superbly done, perfectly shot and edited (no worse than the most striking episodes of Gladiator) scene of the capture of members of a certain drug cartel by Agent Starling. This scene has nothing to do with the subsequent action: its only purpose is to confirm and prove that the viewer is about to see a dynamic film, the main purpose of which is to entertain. Thus, cinema returns to its usual niche. However, this manifesto by Ridley Scott is nothing more than a cunning bait (which many critics who complained about the “external” nature of the action of “Hannibal” also bought into). For example, who replaced Jodie Foster Julianne Moore is indeed more inclined to take decisive action and is even included in the Guinness Book of Records as the female agent who has killed the most people. However, Foster is the muslin darling of the entire United States, and Moore is an iconic actress of American independent cinema, appreciated more often in Europe than at home, the heroine of “Boogie Nights” and “Magnolia” by Paul Thomas Andersen, plus “The Big Lebowski” of the Coen brothers. This alone allows us to suspect some kind of catch in the seemingly serious “Hannibal”. The premonition does not deceive.
The Silence of the Lambs was a pop culture fact dressed up in art house garb. “Hannibal” is the opposite case: a subtle mockery of pop culture, dressed up in its own form. In this sense, we have before us an act of self-devouring. In “Silence,” Demme played in contrast: Dr. Lecter had just been being nice to Clarissa and suddenly he carries out a bloody massacre of the guards, and then calls, completely in the spirit of scare comics, his counterpart to inform him who he intends to have dinner with today. The contrast was inexplicable, and therefore frightening and intriguing. In Hannibal, the contrasting constructions are much more interesting: Dr. Lecter maintains his style to the end, wears a wide-brimmed hat and thin gloves, lives in Florence, works as a librarian... but the whole world around him is obsessed with an anecdotal passion for playing the game “catch the cannibal.” And the doctor joins in - to jokingly win and return home. The irony lies in the fact that Hannibal does not for a second change his polite grimace to an animal grin; he is much more interested in lecturing in the Florentine library than eating human flesh and competing with the police.
But around him literally everyone turns into cannibals. A descendant of an ancient family, Florentine police inspector Pazzi, for the sake of a rich ransom, decides to hand the doctor over to the hands of the avengers - former victims who have completely lost their human form. A high-ranking employee of the Ministry of Justice is stalking Clarissa - simply out of envy and general human harmfulness. Evil reaches its highest concentration in the form of a millionaire who has been hunting for Lecter for many years - his former victim, who was left without a face. This role was played by the brilliant Gary Oldman , who finally turned from an actor into a frightening mannequin and completely unrecognizable (especially in the Russian box office, where even dubbing is heard instead of Oldman’s original voice). With his appearance, the film begins to resemble more and more a terrible fairy tale. Like a troll, Oldman's hero lives in a secluded castle, enjoys his ugliness and cherishes plans for revenge, raising somewhere on a special farm man-eating boars, which will someday devour his past tormentor and future victim, Dr. Hannibal Lecter. All the scenes in Oldman's castle are a reference to Hollywood bad taste and not least to the villains from all four series "Batman" . Hannibal, on the other hand, opposes precisely this flat cinematic universe, preferring books. And even the active Clarissa has to make her choice and take the right side in this rivalry - Lecter's side.
Hannibal is somewhat reminiscent of Bulgakov's Woland. He is dangerous, but only to sinners, who (all of the above) die at his hand. But in the name of Clarissa, he is ready to sacrifice himself, and the nobility of the cannibal does not look far-fetched... if only because the viewer continues to consider the doctor a cannibal only out of inertia. A funny play on quotes: the terrifying millionaire looks like the Elephant Man from the David Lynch film of the same name . There, a touching freak was protected from a cruel world by a humanist doctor, played by a still young Anthony Hopkins. Here Hopkins still plays the role of a doctor, only ugliness has become not a regrettable exception, but a universal rule, and he, an admirer of Renaissance beauty, embarks on a crusade. The position of Agent Starling, whom Lecter calls in a renaissance letter "Clarice", is predetermined here.
What is so good about Dr. Lecter, a recognized and honored cannibal? Yes, because he is a bearer of taste. Let's not call its taste good, but it is a taste that is clearly opposed to tastelessness. In The Silence of the Lambs, the doctor starved in captivity and greedily pounced on food after his release. In Hannibal he is in no hurry. The essence of Lecter - the sophisticated, ironic and slightly tired Anthony Hopkins - is following your taste in everything. Receiving Inspector Pazzi, he goes out into the hallway to calmly pull on thin gloves... not at all in order to strangle or stab the future traitor, and not in order not to leave fingerprints: he simply cannot go out into the street with a suitcase in bare hands. Taste doesn't allow it. And he releases his intestines only when necessary, having repeatedly warned Pazzi that he was destined to die exactly the way his ancestor once died. And in the already famous scene of eating the brains of a living victim, Ridley Scott himself joins the doctor, savoring the spicy situation. Lecter cuts off a piece of the drugged victim's naked brain with a dessert knife, admonishingly saying: "Don't engage in conversation if you can't support it," and Scott directly quotes the episode with the treat of "chilled monkey brains" in "Indiana Jones" . Then, I remember, no one fainted from horror, everyone laughed merrily.
What's the moral of this whole gastronomic story? Perhaps it is that only a cannibal can have perfect taste in the crazy modern world. Or that an extraordinary creative person always seems like a criminal to others. Or that the one who picks up the sword will die from it. Or maybe there was no trace of any morality or moralizing here, just like philosophy. Because sometimes, in order to make a good film, just good taste is enough. And, of course, a sense of humor.